There are different anomalies in WRTC2018 rules and many of them has been
pointed out by many of us.
In one mail to WRTC2018 reflector I wrote about anomaly in having Italy vs
CT CU and EA (completely different propagation to USA).
Same for HB9 vs UK countries.
SOAB has same coefficent as SOAB(A) and more then this also SOABLP has 1.0
factor.
Now we all know how difficult is to control if a SO is really SO not
assisted, can you immagine how is possible to see if a LP is really LP? And
we go for same factor as HP categories?
Hat off for LP stations running 100W but we all know this condition can
really create "distortions" for whom is dedicated to qualifications and
don't give any attention to fair-play.
But this is only the evidence that WRTC is very weak.
If we have to consider WRTC the Olimpic Games why we cannot have standard
rules for all events?
Did you see any changes in sport Olimpic Games every 4 years? NOPE.
Rules are always the same and not up to the organizers every time.
I think WRTC committee has now enough experience to establish a root of
rules specially for qualifications in respect to both parts, competitors
and organizers.
**** Luca IK2NCJ ****
2014-12-03 15:10 GMT+01:00 Braco OE1EMS <oe1ems@emssolutions.at>:
> I agree with Ranko
>
> 2 years/12 Contest sounds mad ...... some of us are crazy (incl. me) but I
> would like to
> do something else in next 2 years except contesting
> If I look to 2014 WRTC qualifications for 12 good scores even with E7DX
> Station I needed to
> operate about 30% more contest to achieve best scores.
> This is like 16 contest in 2 years
> 8 per year !!!!
> And for example instead of 5 teams we have now only 3 Team in our region.
> This means not operate only in 16 contest we will need to operate
> In all contest to not allow others to generate more points?!
>
> WRTC is Team contesting (it was at least) ..... not happy to see only 4 MO
> scores
> and handicap for MS .....
>
> As well I don’t have a feeling that points for WAE/WAG scores are good as
> well...
>
> I know this not going to change anything, but fellow Germans in WRTC
> committee
> you have no idea how contra productive this WRTC selections is going to be!
>
> ONE BIG UNLIKE for qualifications....... :(
>
>
> 73s
> BRACO
> E77DX
>
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: CQ-Contest [mailto:cq-contest-bounces@contesting.com] Im Auftrag von
> 4O3A
> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 03. Dezember 2014 00:23
> An: cq-contest@contesting.com
> Betreff: Re: [CQ-Contest] WRTC2018 Qualifying
>
> Hi to all,
>
> I hope that some comments will be considered and Team selection criteria
> will be changed a bit?
>
> For me and all contesters whom I discussed with, obvious problem is having
> to short selection period.
>
> Ranking 12 contests , and making selection criteria in the way that mostly
> SOAB are to be done is to much. Organizer counts seasons 2015/2016, and not
> counting 2017? None of us can't see reasonable explanation for such
> decision. We all suffered for qualifying for WRTC
> 2014 in Boston, dedicating ourself to make 12 good scores, and we had 3
> years for it. It was really hard - ask anyone from EU or USA who did it.
> Now we have only two years for same number of contests?
>
> I have station capable to win and to assure place in qualification. I am
> enough dedicated to spend unreasonable amount of time for hobby, but
> honestly, it becomes to be so demanding and overmuch.
>
> My proposal should be to:
> -Extend qualification period on 2017
> -Calculate eight best scores
>
> It will give more chance to more contesters with average stations, and will
> demand not quantity of scores - will demand higher scores and quality.
> Simple.
>
> I know that this will be probably ignored, but is is common opinion of many
> contesters and previous WRTC participants.
>
> Also, as organizer has full right to make selection criteria whatever he
> likes, it is better to invite teams by whatever criteria you like, instead
> having bad selection criteria.
>
> Now I am curious to see rules. Hope our German friends will be more open
> for
> rules with more rooms for technical improvements. Hope all will agree that
> this aspect of contesting is very important as well as operating skills?
>
> 73
> Ranko
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
> _______________________________________________
> CQ-Contest mailing list
> CQ-Contest@contesting.com
> http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
>
_______________________________________________
CQ-Contest mailing list
CQ-Contest@contesting.com
http://lists.contesting.com/mailman/listinfo/cq-contest
|